The Hacker's Manifesto (1986) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Hacker's Manifesto (1986)

#151

Post by throwanem » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 10:35 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #125

chadgeidel wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, really? I haven't read enough Heinlein - what was that in? I always thought Rapture of the Nerds was grounded in Vinge's "The Coming Technological Singularity" ( https://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.ht... )

I honestly don't recall the name of the specific piece, but I do remember that it's anthologized in his collection Expanded Universe , and it was clearly the "Singularity" he described, although of course not by that name - there's even a chart and a curve for those readers not yet familiar with the concept of exponential growth! I remember it quite well, not least because I'd thought I was years past learning anythi…

The book got here a day early:

http://i.imgur.com/BIfImA3.jpg

This is from the 1950 edition of "Where To?" - if there's an earlier example of the central concept of the "Singularity", I am not familiar with it.

Re: The Hacker's Manifesto (1986)

#152

Post by icc97 » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 1:49 PM UTC

uola wrote: post #84

icc97 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where else can you get a reply from the Hacker that wrote the Hackers Manifesto.

It's slightly anticlimactic when the comment being responded to is a casual dismissal completely missing the context of the text. I've seen plenty of stories on HN where there's some random flamewar on top and the authors insightful comments are at the bottom. For the backstory by the author you're better off with the talk given at HOPE in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tEnnvZbYek

I'd actually say quite the opposite. It suddenly made an article referring to something 30 years ago have life and relevence today.

I hope it made the parent commenter feel awkward realising that the person he's insulting is metaphorically in the room.

The humilty of @loydb's comment should hopefully add futher shame.

Re: The Hacker's Manifesto (1986)

#153

Post by jeszicawii » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

et-al wrote: post #118

devishard wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a poor "manifesto" too. What exactly are the aims of The Hacker? "Exploring", "Outsmarting you", and "judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like". Platitudes, really, if you set aside the emotional outbursts surrounding them. Platitudes, yes, but they're platitudes because everyone assumes that those are goods that everyone values. The thing is, while most people would say they value th…

> because hackers, unlike the rest of the conversation around women in STEM, don't give a fuck about [gender]. They only care what people do, and it turns out women do about the same amount of stuff as men. Wanted to emphasize this. Hope you don't mind the edit.

Something I wish people understood.

Re: The Hacker's Manifesto (1986)

#154

Post by devishard » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 2:59 PM UTC

et-al wrote: post #118

devishard wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a poor "manifesto" too. What exactly are the aims of The Hacker? "Exploring", "Outsmarting you", and "judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like". Platitudes, really, if you set aside the emotional outbursts surrounding them. Platitudes, yes, but they're platitudes because everyone assumes that those are goods that everyone values. The thing is, while most people would say they value th…

> because hackers, unlike the rest of the conversation around women in STEM, don't give a fuck about [gender]. They only care what people do, and it turns out women do about the same amount of stuff as men. Wanted to emphasize this. Hope you don't mind the edit.

That edit is fine and says a reasonable thing that I agree with, but there are two reasons why I said "women" instead of "gender".

1. "Hackers don't give a fuck about women" is a more shocking statement than "Hackers don't give a fuck about gender" given millennial social justice sensibilities. That shock was intended, because it demonstrates to readers who aren't hackers the difference between their view and the hacker view, in a very visceral way. When you read, "Hackers don't give a fuck about gender", you have to think about it to realize how fundamental a difference in thinking that is. But when you say, "Hackers don't give a fuck about women", you can feel how different it is.

2. Gender is also a much larger issue than women in STEM. In the context of this discussion, "Hackers don't give a fuck about gender" is true, but in a larger context, I think hackers do care about gender, because gender is very hackable.

Re: The Hacker's Manifesto (1986)

#155

Post by et-al » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

devishard wrote: post #154

et-al wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because hackers, unlike the rest of the conversation around women in STEM, don't give a fuck about [gender]. They only care what people do, and it turns out women do about the same amount of stuff as men. Wanted to emphasize this. Hope you don't mind the edit.

That edit is fine and says a reasonable thing that I agree with, but there are two reasons why I said "women" instead of "gender". 1. "Hackers don't give a fuck about women" is a more shocking statement than "Hackers don't give a fuck about gender" given millennial social justice sensibilities. That shock was intended, because it demonstrates to readers who aren't hackers the difference between their view and the hac…

Totally agree with you.

In person, I would totally say "hackers don't give a fuck about women" because like you said, it's got a rhetorical good punch, and I can also clarify it if misconstrued. Whereas on the internet, when someone misinterprets, I may, or may not, have to spend another 5 minutes writing a response.

Solid points.